[RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

[Jim McDonald]

Why not float these ideas for a 160 RTTY contest on the Topband reflector?

Jim N7US

-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Thomas Giella KN4LF
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:40 AM
To: a TARA RTTY eGroup; a RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

Floyd et all,

Happy New Year 2005 to all!

Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is the

same, differing international band allocations. Yes I propose an 
international RTTY contest on 160 and/or inclusion of 160 meters in all 
established RTTY contests. CW and SSB contesters get by with the conflicting

band allocation issue and so can we RTTY'ers.

Yes I agree with your observations about the poor behavior of SSB etc. 
contesters on other bands but RTTY and 160 meter contesters are a different 
breed than the rest of the cabal.

Yes I also agree that 160 meters is much busier now compared to 30 years ago

when the LORAN A stuff was going on. But at the same time it is much less 
active than just 5-10 years ago. Every DXer in the 1845 kc Florida group has

observed the same trend. It's not a propagation issue as I know a little 
about propagation http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm , it's more an issue of an

exponential increase in silent keys, CCR antenna issues and attraction to 
the Internet.

There exists a small sociopathic group of CW only on 160 meter dinosaur 
mentality operators that want the band to stay under utilized and therefore 
a sort QRM free semi private playground or gated community for their single 
pursuit of CW operation. I on the other hand support increased use of 160 
meters to include all existing modes, while providing protection of narrow 
bandwidth modes from wide bandwidth modes.

As far as DX windows go, these gentleman's agreements no longer exist on 160

meters, thanks to the recent ARRL declaration stemming from the ARRL 160 
meter Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.

In any event let's agree to disagree on the issue as gentlemen and still be 
friends.

73,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
Plant City, FL, USA
Grid Square EL87WX
Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W
kn4lf at arrl.net

KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm

> Tom - I didn't say anything about allocations differing amongst countries,

> I referred to REGIONS.  Here is the latest IARU band plan that I could 
> find, and it shows the recommended band usage in the three Regions.  As 
> pointed out on the bottom of that page, these are only recommendations and

> are not binding upon any government.
>
> http://www.iaru-r2.org/hf_e.htm
>
> I assume that any contest you would propose would be international in 
> nature and not just for USA or Region 2 stations.  Region 1 stations who 
> are interested in being good radio citizens would be restricted to 
> 1838-1842 KHz and wouldn't use the 1805-1815 segment.
>
> I understand your enthusiasm in thinking that contesters are "one cut 
> above", but behavior observed in contests at this location simply don't 
> bear that out.  Take a listen on 40 meter DX SSB frequencies during any of

> the DX contests and listen to all the USA stations who are calling the 
> CQing DX on their frequency, far below the bottom of the US band.  Note 
> the callsigns and see how many of them are regular contesters.
>
> Perhaps propagation in Florida on 160 hasn't been very good the past few 
> years, but the band here in NC is certainly not empty of QSOs (OK, don't 
> hear any RTTY QSOs!).  Activity over the past 30 years has increased 
> substantially, both from a US and a DX standpoint.  The one big difference

> I notice is that even the highly skilled contesters don't have a clue what

> the DX window is for, and apparently think that is where the DX stations 
> listen for them to call CQ.
>
> K8AC
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>
> To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" 
> <rtty at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:06 PM
> Subject: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting
>
>
>> Floyd et all,
>>
>> Yes I also see wide AFSK RTTY and PSK31 signals on the HF bands. When I 
>> politely mention same to the offending parties the response is usually 
>> hostile or indifferent at best. But I don't think it would be an issue 
>> amongst contesters as we are one cut above the rest in technical 
>> knowledge and operating skill.
>>
>> The defacto digital operating band on 160 meters is 1805-1815 kc. But 
>> just as 160 meter CW and SSB contesters spread out during a contest and 
>> ragchewers find something else to do, the same would happen with an RTTY 
>> contest. Also as far as 160 meter band segment allocations differing 
>> amongst countries, that happens on all the HF bands. You just make do.
>>
>> Compared to just 5-10 years ago the 160 meter band is virtually empty of 
>> QSO's, so an RTTY contest would be beneficial to the band as far as use 
>> thereof.
>>
>> Just my .02!
>>
>> 73,
>> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty